Because the Federal Reserve has become a political target, it is in no hurry to have monetary policy displace fiscal policy in underpinning the economy, but it may be forced to do so given its dual mandate and the likelihood of fiscal contraction. Last week, when discussing what QE3 could look like I indicated that were the Federal Reserve to start expanding its balance sheet, QE3 will see interest rate caps after a pause and period of reflection. Let me address the differences between the various QEs here to illustrate why interest rate caps are being contemplated.

QE1

The LSAPs were not aimed at supplying liquidity to financial institutions or at reducing systemic risk. Instead, they were intended to support economic activity by keeping longer-term private interest rates lower than they would otherwise be.

A primary channel through which this effect takes place is by narrowing the risk premiums on the assets being purchased. By purchasing a particular asset, the Fed reduces the amount of the security that the private sector holds, displacing some investors and reducing the holdings of others. In order for investors to be willing to make those adjustments, the expected return on the security has to fall. Put differently, the purchases bid up the price of the asset and hence lower its yield. These effects would be expected to spill over into other assets that are similar in nature, to the extent that investors are willing to substitute between the assets. These patterns describe what researchers often refer to as the portfolio balance channel.

I am not sure why Brian Sack stressed the Fed’s intention to support economic activity as the chief aim of QE1 in December 2009. While I won’t dispute a Fed official’s interpretation of the Fed’s intentions, it is abundantly clear that QE1 was a different animal than QE2. In QE1, the Fed purchased agency securities and mortgage-backed securities rather than Treasury securities as it did in QE2. This is significant as Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke was at pains to stress that QE1 was “credit easing”, focused on the asset side of the balance sheet, and therefore distinct to what the Japanese had done. See the Bernanke speech at the LSE from January 2009. When he says “in addition to easing monetary policy, the Federal Reserve has worked to support the functioning of credit markets by providing liquidity to the private sector” at the 7-minute mark, it is clear to me that he means that credit easing has provided liquidity that the purchase of mere Treasury securities could not. Whether these asset purchases were “aimed at” providing liquidity is largely semantic.

In my view, the difference between Sack’s commentary in December 2009 and Bernanke’s in January 2009 owes to the political backdrop because bailouts of the financial sector had become extremely unpopular. During QE1, the Fed purchased $175 billion of agency debt securities and $1.25 trillion of mortgage-backed securities in addition to purchases of Treasuries. In effect, the Federal Reserve became the market as the shadow bank sector imploded. The mortgage-backed securities market had ground to a halt and the Fed took the entire market onto its balance sheet to prevent a second Great Depression.

So, if I had to characterize QE1 I would say: the first round of large scale asset purchases by the Federal Reserve was intended to support economic activity. However, because the Fed focused on the asset side in increasing its balance sheet by buying assets it had not previously purchased in large quantities, the Federal Reserve worked to support the functioning of credit markets by providing liquidity to the private sector. Without this easing, the US and the global economy would have had a depression of indescribable severity with unknown attendant geopolitical and military consequences.

The second round of quantitative easing was distinct from the first – and more akin to what the Japanese had done. The aim was to support economic activity in the US domestic economy. Starting in August 2010, the Federal Reserve started reinvesting principal payments from agency debt and agency mortgage-backed securities that it had acquired in QE1 in longer-term Treasury securities. By November 2010, after the 2010 mid-term elections, the FOMC decided to expand its balance sheet by $600 billion through the purchase of Treasury securities.

But, as we have detailed many times here at Credit Writedowns, quantitative easing doesn’t actually have an impact on the real economy. It is an asset swap. The Federal Reserve buys Treasury bonds and sells dollars it has created expressly for that transaction. After the asset swap, the balance sheet of the primary dealer which sold the Treasuries to the Fed has not increased; it now has cash instead of Treasuries. So there are more reserve deposits and fewer Treasuries in the private sector. The Federal Reserve has Treasuries instead of the money it created in expanding its balance sheet. While the reserves can ostensibly be lent out, the reality is that this money will sit in a bank vault idle unless the demand for loans warrants otherwise. It is a misunderstanding of how the banking system works to assume the mere creation of reserves has any significance regarding lending. I would argue the swap drains the economy of higher interest-bearing assets that add to income, replacing them with essentially non-interest bearing assets. Why would we want the Fed to conduct QE then if we know this will just create excess reserves as it did when the Fed began credit easing in QE1?

In particular, central bank purchases of longer-term securities work through a portfolio balance channel to depress term premiums and longer-term interest rates. The theoretical rationale for the view that longer-term yields should be directly linked to the outstanding quantity of longer-term assets in the hands of the public dates back at least to the 1950s.

This is problematic because the Fed had intended to lower interest rates via the lowered risk premia. That was their stated purpose when they started QE. I know they talk only about having boosted asset prices now to prove QE2 was a success. But, initially, the Fed wanted to lower interest rates too. So while the Fed lowered risk premia, “It is conceivable that accommodative monetary policy could provide tinder for a buildup of leverage". Moreover, the Fed’s QE2 raised inflation expectations, causing interest rates to actually rise and working at cross-purposes with the lowered risk premia. Thus, QE2 was only successful insofar as it has increased business credit and raised asset prices. As we now see, the economy has actually cooled during QE2. So soon after I told you the QE2 trade was effectively over in late March, asset prices and bond yields started to come down as inflation expectations plummeted.

When it comes to quantitative easing, we have to look both at the quantitative and the easing. Going back to the Fed’s failure to reduce longer-term interest rates during QE2, it has more to do with the quantitative than the easing. Ultimately, one can influence the price or the quantity of something, but not both. And with QE2, the Fed decided to influence the quantity (of bank reserves), when its stated aim was to influence price (of money reflected by interest rates).

It is unlikely that the Fed will go back to the well for the same policy since QE2 has proved ineffective. So now that the economy is weak again, it will up the ante and target rates instead of specific easing quantities. This has the potential political benefit of the Fed’s not having to expand its balance sheet. The Fed would essentially guarantee a rate and let the markets move interest rates to that level. Of course, the Fed would promise to defend the rate(s) if and when necessary. The Fed may be tested initially, but punters would lose their shirts fighting a market player with a potentially unlimited supply of liquidity. So I would expect the balance sheet effects for the Fed to be muted. And clearly, if QE3 reduced rates in addition to having largely the same impact as QE2 as well, it would be a more powerful tool.

There could be internal dissent to such an aggressive policy. I do not expect QE3 now nor do I expect it unless the economy deteriorates further. So the Fed could start off by signalling to the market that it will conduct what I have been calling ‘permanent zero’. Look for how the Fed reinforces its commitment to "exceptional low levels for the federal funds rate for an extended period”. If Bernanke is forceful about this commitment in this week’s FOMC press conference, people will be forced to accept the likelihood of permanent zero and the term structure will flatten further and further out the curve.

I hope this post spells out the differences between the various QEs. QE3 is qualitatively different than credit easing (QE1) or quantitative easing (QE2). Let’s call QE3 rate easing. And while we can hope the economy strengthens so that rate easing is unnecessary, the push for it is already well-advanced.

P.S. – this article is expressing views neither for nor against quantitative easing because this blog is more concerned with predicting than advocating. Personally, I am opposed to quantitative easing for many of the same reasons Janet Yellen has expressed caution. Yellen believes the effects of QE, even QE2, outweigh the political and economic risks. I do not. But it seems to me that QE3 is a distinct possibility that must be examined, especially as it relates to changes from the first two rounds of QE.

Edward Harrison is the founder of Credit Writedowns and a former career diplomat, investment banker and technology executive with over twenty years of business experience. He is also a regular economic and financial commentator on BBC World News, CNBC Television, Business News Network, CBC, Fox Television and RT Television. He speaks six languages and reads another five, skills he uses to provide a more global perspective. Edward holds an MBA in Finance from Columbia University and a BA in Economics from Dartmouth College. Edward also writes a premium financial newsletter. Sign up here for a free trial.

14 Comments

IOeRs are as counterproductive as raising the maximum interest rates commercial banks (REG Q CEILINGs), could pay on time and savings deposits in 1966.

Back then, Regulation Q policy allowed the commercial banks (during the first seven months of 1966), to pay higher interest rates on certificates of deposit than savings and loan associations and the mutual savings banks could pay on share certificates and savings deposits. Such an interest rate differential existed in no other period. It was this factor, unique to 1966, that triggered the residential mortgage credit crisis of that year (at that point in time the thrifts didn’t even have interest rate ceilings – their first ceilings were established in Sept).

IOeRs (like REG Q CEILINGs in 66), induce dis-intermediation (dry up), in the money market (which is differentiated by its position on the yield curve (i.e., short-term borrowing & lending with original maturities within a one year period).

Depending upon the source, IOeRs reduce the supply of loan-funds, increase the cost of loan-funds, & absorb existing savings. I.e., the IOR policy exerts a depressive effect upon gDp.

Yes, it is about what is the dependent and independent variable. About what you control and what you influence. For example, Saudi Arabia can fix a price for the oil it sells at say $300 but it cannot control how much oil it will be able to sell at that price. Conversely, they could fix the amount that they pump at 10 mm bbls, but in doing so they will relinquish control of the price. They can control either quantity or price but not both.

Yes, it is about what is the dependent and independent variable. About what you control and what you influence. For example, Saudi Arabia can fix a price for the oil it sells at say $300 but it cannot control how much oil it will be able to sell at that price. Conversely, they could fix the amount that they pump at 10 mm bbls, but in doing so they will relinquish control of the price. They can control either quantity or price but not both.

QE1 & 2 recovered only 1.8 million jobs out of total 9 million US
jobless, US assets still fallen more than 30% and with US debt
reaching US$14.3 trillion. US would be in the land of unpredictable and
US debt default will be catastrophic.
RIGHTWAYS

QE1 & 2 recovered only 1.8 million jobs out of total 9 million US
jobless, US assets still fallen more than 30% and with US debt
reaching US$14.3 trillion. US would be in the land of unpredictable and
US debt default will be catastrophic.
RIGHTWAYS

Disclaimer: All data and information provided on this site is for informational purposes only. Creditwritedowns.com is not a financial advisor, and does not recommend the purchase of any stock or advise on the suitability of any trade or investment. The ideas expressed on this site are solely the opinions of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the opinions of firms affiliated with the author(s). The author(s) may or may not have a position in any security referenced herein. Any action that you take as a result of information or analysis on this site is ultimately your responsibility. Consult your investment adviser before making any investment decisions.